Distracted Driving:

Detecting Texting with

Neural Networks


Joseph Blubaugh

29 March 2017

Contents


  • Data Introduction, Preparation, and Project Management
  • Exploratory Analysis and Model Proposal
  • Understanding Basic Neural Nets
  • Model Training and Selection
  • Exploring Model Effects

Data Introduction

Data Extraction and Preparation

Project Management


Data Introduction

  • The data in this project are of 8 driving simulations for 66 individuals ranging from 3,000 to 30,000 observations per simulation.
  • Every simulation observation contains likelihood scores for 8 facial expressions recorded at a fixed interval of .03 seconds.
  • Stimuli data which records targetted events introduced into each simulation and basic demographic data on each subject are also available.
  • There are over 6.7 million observations in the entire dataset spread accross 777 files.

T001-001.xlsx (Subject 01, Simulation 01)
Drawing


Data Extraction

  • Python scripts were used to extract and combine the 509 driving simulation files and 267 stimuli files into combined data sets.
  • The subject-simulation identifier was the name of each file. A column labeled ID was created based on the file name to identify the original data set.

Sample of data-faces.csv

Frame Time Anger Contempt Disgust Fear Joy Sad Surprise Neutral ID
0 0.0000 0.0101 0.0218 0.0043 0.0541 0.5260 0.0959 0.0010 0.2868 T001-001
1 0.0333 0.0101 0.0218 0.0043 0.0541 0.5260 0.0959 0.0010 0.2868 T001-001
2 0.0667 0.0101 0.0218 0.0043 0.0541 0.5260 0.0959 0.0010 0.2868 T001-001
3 0.1000 0.0080 0.0187 0.0032 0.0375 0.5353 0.1050 0.0011 0.2911 T001-001
4 0.1333 0.0091 0.0380 0.0158 0.0036 0.6902 0.0177 0.0004 0.2252 T001-001
5 0.1667 0.0104 0.0450 0.0139 0.0030 0.7157 0.0162 0.0003 0.1955 T001-001

Sample of data-stimuli.csv

Start End Event.Switch Event.Type Event ID
86.5 246.50 1 1 Analytical Questions T001-005
508.5 657.50 1 2 Mathematical Questions T001-005
107.5 269.25 1 3 Emotional Questions T001-006
521.0 674.75 1 3 Emotional Questions T001-006
81.0 240.00 1 4 Texting T001-007
510.0 671.00 1 4 Texting T001-007

  • NOTE: 2 simulation files started on different rows than the rest of the 507 files and had to be manually corrected.
    • T034-005.xlsx: header starts on row 8
    • T009-006.xlsx: header starts on row 10

Data Preparation

  • The event data captured the starting and ending times of events only.
  • A loop function was written to go through each record and compare time between the simulation and the starting/ending time of the event.
  • If the simulation time fell within the starting/ending time interval in the event data, then all of the records in the time interval were coded with that event (ie: Texting)
  • All observations outside of the event time interval were coded as No Event.


Sample of Cleaned Data Showing an Event Transition

Subject Trial Age Gender Frame Time Event.Switch Event Action Anger Contempt Disgust Fear Joy Sad Surprise Neutral Texting
T001 007 Y M 2427 80.900 0 No Event 0 0.0909 0.0575 0.4205 3e-04 0.0011 0.1343 0 0.2954 0
T001 007 Y M 2428 80.933 0 No Event 0 0.0612 0.0397 0.4293 4e-04 0.0011 0.1630 0 0.3052 0
T001 007 Y M 2429 80.967 0 No Event 0 0.1034 0.0963 0.3186 2e-04 0.0013 0.0856 0 0.3946 0
T001 007 Y M 2430 81.000 1 Texting 4 0.0363 0.4976 0.0171 1e-04 0.0024 0.0069 0 0.4396 1
T001 007 Y M 2431 81.033 1 Texting 4 0.0059 0.7285 0.0027 4e-04 0.0068 0.0063 0 0.2493 1
T001 007 Y M 2432 81.067 1 Texting 4 0.0058 0.6890 0.0035 4e-04 0.0077 0.0068 0 0.2868 1


  • NOTE: The average texting event lasted 2.5 minutes, but we dont really know what occurred during the event time interval. Was there one long texting action or was the event made up of a series of sending and receiving texts?

Project Management


Reproducible Research

  • Code, plots, and this presentation are organized and hosted in a github repository.
  • The main page includes steps to reproduce the data set and models
  • The data is too large to be hosted and would need to be retrieved elsewhere


Github Project: https://github.com/jestonblu/driving

Github Project Page Drawing



Exploratory Analysis

and

Model Proposal


Exploratory Analysis

Drawing

  • The yellow and gray points represent events during the trials
  • The baseline trial has no events and is gray throughout.
  • LOESS (Local Polynomial Regression) lines display the moving average over the entire simulation
  • Many subjects displayed visual differences between the texting simulation and the baseline simulation

Exploratory Analysis

Drawing

Drawing

Drawing

Drawing

Exploratory Analysis

Drawing

  • The same LOESS lines were used to show all 59 subjects on a single plot
  • All observations were centered on the overall average of the baseline simulation
  • Anger, Contempt, Disgust, and Neutral displayed more variation than the other emotions for both trials

Model Proposal

Drawing


Takeaways

  • Differences in variation between the trials suggest that it may be possible to build a model capable of predicting a texting event

  • Subject specific plots are unique enough that a individual subjects variables may be needed in modeling

  • Baseline Trial: Trial 4 was used as a baseline trial because the conditions were identical to the Texting Trial (dense traffic with detour)


Model Proposal:

  • Train Neural Networks using emotional likelihoods and demographics to predict when a subject is texting
    • Well suited for large data sets of continuous variables
    • Analogous to logistic regression and appropriate for predicting probabilities



Understanding Basic

Neural Networks


Neural Network Basics

Basic Neural Network Example Drawing

General Model Form

\[ nnet(O1 \sim X1 + X2, size = 3) \]


Feed-Forward Neural Networks

  • Class of Statistical Learning model
  • Uses a training set for tuning the model and a testing set for measuring performance
  • Similar to logistic regression
  • Typically displayed as a diagram of connected nodes


Neural Network Components

  • Nodes:
    • Input Nodes: Input values of the predictor variables
    • Hidden and Output Nodes: Value are the sumproduct of the connected weights
  • Weights: Represents the transformation that takes place between nodes
  • Activation Function: Transforms the output into an appropriate scale
    • For logistic regression, the sigmoid function: \( S(x) = \frac{1}{1 + \exp(-x)} \)

Neural Network Basics

Step 1: Model is Initialized with Random Weights


Step 2: Calculate Hidden Weights and Output Node Prediction

  • Hidden Node values are the sum product of the connected weights and input nodes

\[ \begin{align} H1 = & (1)(.2) + (1)(.4) = 0.6, \text{ } S(0.6) = .645 \\ H2 = & (1)(.1) + (1)(.6) = 0.7, \text{ }S(0.7) = .668 \\ H3 = & (1)(.7) + (1)(.3) = 1.0, \text{ }S(1.0) = .731 \\ \end{align} \]

  • Output Node Prediction

\[ O1 = (.645)(.3) + (.668)(.5) + (.731)(.7) = 1.039 \\ S(1.039) = .739 \]

  • Model Error: .739

NOTE: Activation Function
\[ \begin{align} S(x) = & \frac{1}{1 + \exp(-x)} \end{align} \]

First Iteration of a Basic Neural Network Drawing

NOTE: Grayed values did not change from previous step

Neural Network Basics

Step 3: Update Weights Based on Error

  • Update Weights between Hidden Layer and Output Node

\[ \begin{align} Delta = & S'(.739) = .2187 \\ \\ DeltaChange = & (.2187) / [.645, .668, .731] = [.339, .327, .299] \\ \\ w_7 = & .645 - .339 = .306 \\ w_8 = & .668 - .327 = .341 \\ w_9 = & .731 - .299 = .432 \\ \end{align} \]

  • Update Weights between Input Node and Hidden Layer

\[ \begin{align} DeltaWeights = & Delta / [.3, .5, .7] * S'([.6, .7, 1]) \\ = & [.167, .097, .061] \\ \\ DeltaChange = & DeltaWeights / [1, 1] \\ = & [.167, .097, .061, .167, .097, .061] \\ \\ w_1 = & .2 - .167 = .033 \\ w_2 = & .1 - .097 = .003 \\ w_3 = & .7 - .061 = .639 \\ w_4 = & .4 - .167 = .233 \\ w_5 = & .6 - .097 = .503 \\ w_6 = & .3 - .061 = .239 \\ \end{align} \]

Step 4: Repeat steps 2-3 to update node values

  • S(.633) = .653, Error = .653 vs previous .739

First Iteration of a Basic Neural Network Drawing

  • Grayed values did not change from previous step
  • \( S'(x) = S(x)(1 - S(x)) \)



Model Fitting and Selection


Model Fitting

Neural Network Model Design Drawing



General Model Form

\[ \begin{align*} nnet(Texting = & \text{ } Subject + Age + Gender + Anger + Contempt \text{ } + \\ & \text{ } Digust + Fear + Joy + Sad + Surprise + Neutral)\\ \end{align*} \]

Modeling Strategy

  • Train the same general model on various slices of the data to see what works best

  • 12 total training/testing data sets created from the combination of Data Processing and Data Split methods

  • Data Processing

    • Original: Emotions in the original form measured in .03 second intervals.
    • Differencing: First order differening of the original observations.
    • Moving Avg: Moving averages n=30 for all of the emotions.
    • ½ Sec Cut: Time cut into ½ second intervals with the average value recorded.
    • ½ Sec Diff: First order differncing of the ½ second cut data.
    • ½ Sec Cut Stat: ½ Sec Cut with additional sd, min, max, iqr, and median.

  • Data Split

    • 365 Split: The data are split at the 365 second, approximately half way through the texting simulation.
    • Entire Sim: The training set is randomly selected from the entire simulation.

Model Fitting

Statistical Software

  • R's nnet package for feed-forward neural networks

  • The Caret Package

    • Caret is a modeling framework for training and testing classification and regression models
    • Uses models from other packages and offers a rich set of validation test and diagnostic plots
    • Can implement parallel processing of cross validation tasks

Performance and Validation Testing

  • k=10 cross validation for training sets
  • AUC (Area Under Curve) and total accuracy

Model Search Parameters

  • Max Iterations: The number of iterations allowed for training
    • 100 (500 and 1000 iterations are run for the best models)
  • Size: The number of nodes in the hidden layer. Increases training time exponentially
    • [1, 10, 25, 50]
  • Decay: A penality applied to weights after each iteration. Moves weights that dont update towards zero.
    • [0, .1, .2]

NOTE: Each Model is trained 120 times

  • (k=10 cross validation) x (12 combinations of size and decay)

Model Selection


Model Performance with 100 Iteration Limit

Model Data Processing Data Split MaxItr Size Decay Training Testing AUC
Model 1: Original 365 Split 100 50 .20 .760 .676 .734
Model 2: Original Entire Sim 100 50 .20 .754 .754 .847
Model 3: Differencing 365 Split 100 10 .00 .518 .516 .526
Model 4: Differencing Entire Sim 100 25 .10 .572 .571 .637
Model 5: Moving Avg 365 Split 100 10 .00 .503 .502 .527
Model 6: Moving Avg Entire Sim 100 10 .00 .528 .528 .544
Model 7: ½ Sec Cut 365 Split 100 50 .10 .820 .698 .761
Model 8: ½ Sec Cut Entire Sim 100 50 .20 .788 .779 .868
Model 9: ½ Sec Diff 365 Split 100 50 .10 .633 .602 .650
Model 10: ½ Sec Diff Entire Sim 100 50 .20 .682 .622 .681
Model 11: ½ Sec Cut Stat 365 Split 100 50 .10 .846 .716 .781
Model 12: ½ Sec Cut Stat Entire Sim 100 50 .20 .820 .803 .891

Additional Training for Best Models

Model Data Processing Data Split MaxItr Size Decay Training Testing AUC
Model 8: ½ Sec Cut Entire Sim 250 50 .10 .816 .804 .893
Model 8: ½ Sec Cut Entire Sim 500 50 .10 .828 .810 .899
Model 8: ½ Sec Cut Entire Sim 1000 50 .10 .842 .820 .906
Model 12: ½ Sec Cut Stat Entire Sim 250 50 .10 .858 .823 .906
Model 12: ½ Sec Cut Stat Entire Sim 500 50 .20 .864 .823 .907
Model 12: ½ Sec Cut Stat Entire Sim 1000 50 .10 .871 .824 .908

NOTE: Blue indicates best models



Drawing


Drawing

Model Fitting

Model Training and Validation

## Set Cross Validation
fit.control = trainControl(method = "cv", number = 10)

## Create combination of model parameters to train on
search.grid = expand.grid(decay = c(0, .1, .2), 
                          size = c(1, 10, 25, 50))

## Limit the iterations and weights each model can run
maxIt = 1000; maxWt = 15000

fit = train(Texting ~ . - Time, mdl.08.train, 
            method = "nnet",
            trControl = fit.control,
            tuneGrid = search.grid,
            MaxNWts = maxWt,
            maxit = maxIt)

44503 samples, 12 predictors, 2 classes: '0', '1' 

Resampling: Cross-Validated (10 fold) 
Summary of sample sizes: 40053, 40053, 40052, 40052, ...
Resampling results across tuning parameters:

  ------------------------------
  Decay  Size  Accuracy   Kappa
  ------------------------------
  0.0     1    0.6654     0.3042
  0.0    10    0.7857     0.5519
  0.0    25    0.8135     0.6129
  0.0    50    0.8252     0.6375
  0.1     1    0.6830     0.3182
  0.1    10    0.8052     0.5934
  0.1    25    0.8247     0.6352
  0.1    50    0.8304     0.6472 ## Best Model
  0.2     1    0.6809     0.3126
  0.2    10    0.8033     0.5889
  0.2    25    0.8196     0.6242
  0.2    50    0.8241     0.6336

Parameter Comparisons
Drawing

Confusion Matrix and Statistical Summaries

          Reference
Prediction     0     1
         0 22736  4616
         1  2943 14208

               Accuracy : 0.8301          
                 95% CI : (0.8266, 0.8336)
    No Information Rate : 0.577           
    P-Value [Acc > NIR] : < 2.2e-16       

                  Kappa : 0.6479          
  Mcnemars Test P-Value : < 2.2e-16       

            Sensitivity : 0.8854          
            Specificity : 0.7548          

         Pos Pred Value : 0.8312          
         Neg Pred Value : 0.8284          

      Balanced Accuracy : 0.8201
  Area Under Curve (AUC): 0.906

Model Performance

Drawing

  • Each point is colored by the prediction of the best model
  • The blue line is a LOESS smoother of the probability predition for that corresponding prediction
  • The shaded regions represent the actual texting window
  • Yellow points within the gray regions represent correct predictions

Model Performance

Drawing

Drawing

Drawing

Drawing

Model Performance

Total Accuracy by Subject

  T022 T086 T007 T006 T018 T035 T083 T076 T081 T064 T020 T012 T074 T009 T013 T088 T003 T032 T011 T044 TOP 20
Train 0.981 0.960 0.919 0.943 0.940 0.956 0.956 0.949 0.929 0.922 0.931 0.928 0.925 0.914 0.907 0.937 0.907 0.915 0.916 .915 .932
Test 0.971 0.952 0.948 0.942 0.937 0.936 0.932 0.927 0.923 0.919 0.918 0.913 0.909 0.905 0.903 0.896 0.896 0.895 0.881 .880 .919
GenderMale 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
AgeOld 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 7
  T080 T016 T005 T060 T039 T015 T008 T046 T029 T079 T051 T073 T082 T024 T010 T001 T066 T017 T033 T042 MID 20
Train 0.897 0.904 0.867 0.911 0.880 0.868 0.879 0.883 0.842 0.892 0.884 0.855 0.866 0.829 0.847 0.867 0.855 0.824 0.825 0.843 .865
Test 0.872 0.871 0.864 0.859 0.853 0.850 0.848 0.847 0.839 0.837 0.832 0.831 0.830 0.827 0.826 0.825 0.819 0.817 0.803 0.802 .837
GenderMale 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 8
AgeOld 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7
  T031 T040 T061 T036 T047 T084 T077 T014 T004 T021 T019 T002 T054 T025 T041 T034 T023 T038 T027 BOTTOM 19
Train 0.846 0.814 0.796 0.800 0.789 0.803 0.792 0.828 0.771 0.812 0.746 0.742 0.774 0.760 0.719 0.704 0.711 0.674 0.651 .764
Test 0.794 0.790 0.787 0.783 0.782 0.776 0.766 0.758 0.758 0.757 0.742 0.735 0.731 0.724 0.720 0.700 0.682 0.665 0.640 .741
GenderMale 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 10
AgeOld 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 12

Exploring Modeling Effects

Drawing

Evaluating Differences in Age and Gender 

******************************************************************
Levene's Test for Homogeneity of Variance
******************************************************************
      Df F value Pr(>F)
group  3  0.3182 0.8122
      55     

******************************************************************
General Linear Model
******************************************************************
Deviance Residuals: 
      Min         1Q     Median         3Q        Max  
-0.163277  -0.041330  -0.000279   0.059284   0.148769  

Coefficients:
                      Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
(Intercept)            0.80337    0.02261  35.534   <2e-16 ***
GenderAgeYoung Female  0.05604    0.02953   1.898    0.063 .  
GenderAgeOld Male      0.02099    0.03033   0.692    0.492    
GenderAgeYoung Male    0.03718    0.03033   1.226    0.226    
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

(Dispersion parameter for gaussian family taken to be 0.006133847)

    Null deviance: 0.36163  on 58  degrees of freedom
Residual deviance: 0.33736  on 55  degrees of freedom
AIC: -127.25

Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 2

******************************************************************
Shapiro-Wilk Normality Test
******************************************************************
data:  mdl$residuals
W = 0.97765, p-value = 0.3482

Conclusions